Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday
Coach is Right ^ | 1/17/2012 | Doug Book

Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)

It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.

Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)

As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!

The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)

That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.

As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: barackobama; certifigate; eligiblitydecision; libertylegal; michaelmalihi; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-317 next last

1 posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:18 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

In before the derisive contra-birthers.


2 posted on 02/17/2012 9:28:39 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

That clerk’s behavior sounds an awful lot like that of Supreme Court Stay Clerk, Danny Bickel...

Let me guess - did the clerk wait a week without saying anything to Irion (about any problems with the filing) because the papers had to be tested for anthrax?

Here we go again. The same suspicious behavior, the same crappy rulings. Somebody needs to monitor the communications of the clerks and judges in question - IMMEDIATELY.


3 posted on 02/17/2012 9:30:47 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs
In before the derisive contra-birthers.

Yeah, gotta hate it when those folks who have been right every single time show up and harsh the mellow.

4 posted on 02/17/2012 9:32:25 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I didn’t say nuthin’.


5 posted on 02/17/2012 9:37:15 AM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

The irony of a judge who apparently accepted as probative a non-certified internet image of a (forged) birth certificate... refusing to certify the record of the court as required by law so another judge could determine whether Obama and his attorney were guilty of contempt of court.

This is now 2 different kinds of motions that Malihi just ignored: Hatfield’s motion for Malihi to determine who had the burden of proof, and all the attorneys’ motions for Malihi to certify the record so another judge could consider contempt of court charges.

Lawlessness on open display. These people are making a mockery out of the whole system. A big ol’ middle finger to the whole rest of the country and the rule of law. Just like Obama and his attorney raised the middle finger to us all.


6 posted on 02/17/2012 9:39:30 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

the law does not give a clerk the right to make a legal determination of what to file and what not to file. That is the courts duty. However, if he does question you, ask him these three questions;

(1) to show in your states code what his job is. Point out to him the law (it’s the same in every state or close enough for government work); if he still does not record your documents, then

(2) demand a copy of his surety bond and

(3) the name of his insurance carrier for that bond


7 posted on 02/17/2012 9:39:30 AM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You are quite right! The burden of proof fiasco was VERY important and Malihi completely ignored it, knowing it would bury Obama. This judge’s actions have smelled to high heaven even though he actually began the cases honestly.


8 posted on 02/17/2012 9:43:24 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
In before you proved to be the important thing.

Sigh. The founders knew what they were doing with NBC. Who'da thunk in just over 200 years so many would have no clue what it means and/or have been completely compromised by the propaganda?

Heil Hussein!
9 posted on 02/17/2012 9:56:25 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

There is a conspiracy in this country to protect Obama.

Higher ups are frightened.

Most of us will not live long enough to see the whole truth come out.


10 posted on 02/17/2012 9:56:29 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Yes, and if they can corrupt NBC to mean “citizen”, then they’ll have the positive reinforcement to finally redefine that pesky 2nd amendment they hate so much.

Then the Bill of Rights, then the Constitution.

Heil Hussein!


11 posted on 02/17/2012 9:59:22 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I hope I live long enough to finally hear the truth about this. I truly believe they are afraid of an all out race war. And with the half being the have-not’s and the other half the have’s . . . I say go ahead and bring it on and get it over with so we can finally move on and ahead.


12 posted on 02/17/2012 10:09:00 AM PST by Qwackertoo (Gingrich/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

That will be helpful information for anybody working with a ballot challenge.

Were you following when all that happened with Danny Bickel in the Supreme Court’s treatment of Donofrio v Wells? When Danny Bickel was able to get away with everything he did, Donofrio’s conclusion was that the Supreme Court justices themselves were compromised.

The VERY SAME DAY that SCOTUS refused to hear Donofrio’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an unprecedented invitation to Obama for an ex parte meeting at the Supreme Court before the inauguration. People will tell you that this is a standard courtesy visit, but I have documentation that this is the first time that the COURT ever initiated that meeting, and this is the only time where such a meeting took place when cases about the election were pending.

The conference to decide whether SCOTUS would hear Donofrio’s case was on a Friday and the results were not released to the public until the following Monday. Roberts issued his invitation on Friday so that the public knew of that invitation at the very same time that SCOTUS was conferring about taking Donofrio’s case. The timing was blatant.

Then Roberts biffed the legal oath of office so that Obama never said the correct oath on Jan 20, 2009. They re-did the oath in private, but though it would have been just as easy to videotape as to audiotape, Roberts was never seen on video giving the correct oath to Obama.

On the last day of 2011 Roberts once again broke precedent by including in his year-end report comments about the ethics of the Supreme Court - saying he trusted the justices to know when to recuse themselves (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-31/supreme-court-recusal-policy/52307886/1 ). This came after Kagan and Sotomayor had been asked to recuse themselves from a conference to decide whether to hear an eligibility case in which THEIR VERY POSITIONS AS JUSTICES WAS AT STAKE. Roberts was very conspicuously saying that he had no problem with individual justices deciding cases where their very job stood or fell with the defendant.

I believe Donofrio was right; the Supreme Court itself is compromised. There are plenty of indicators of that.

And retired military generals intervened in the case of Lt Col Terry Lakin, telling him to drop the eligibility issue because the judicial system is compromised and cannot be trusted to give Constitutional decisions. These men - including Paul Vallely - said that CIA operatives had been to Hawaii in search of any birth records for Obama and there simply aren’t any records for him. If these guys are privy to what the CIA and/or other intelligence groups are doing and the information they have, and they say the judicial system is compromised.... I have a tendency to believe them, especially given the blatant outward signs that even I can see.

Factor in the threats that were made to the media on the eligibility issue in October of 2008 and again after the election (right before Roberts made his unprecedented invitation to Obama the same day the SCOTUS conferred over Donofrio’s case), and it suggests to me that maybe Roberts was also threatened.

And now we see the same kinds of unlawful behavior in Georgia, with both Malihi and with the clerk of the superior court that would hear the appeal.

This is a pattern, people. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME.


13 posted on 02/17/2012 10:09:41 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I should have said that Roberts’ statement of confidence in the justices knowing when to recuse themselves came after Kagan and Sotomayor had been asked to recuse themselves from a case in which their very jobs were at stake - AND THEY REFUSED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES EVEN WHEN FACED WITH THE ULTIMATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. And Roberts had no problem with that.

If he had no problem with judges insisting on deciding cases where they have the penultimate conflict of interest, then he is willing to throw ALL ETHICS out the door, which is proof that he is as badly compromised as a judge can possibly be.

And making that publicly clear in a bells-and-whistles treatment of what is normally a boring end-of-year report is as close to parading in public with your dirty underwear hanging out as I can imagine. Either he was told he had to do that by people who wanted to use his “conservative” credibility (as Obama’s close confidant Cass Sunstein proposed should be done just when the eligibility issue was surfacing - see http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ ) , or else he did it hoping everybody would notice his dirty underwear. A red flag similar to the unprecedented invitation the very day of Donofrio’s conference, aimed at letting the public know he was operating under duress.


14 posted on 02/17/2012 10:21:18 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Should be pretty easy to pinpoint the DAY that Malihi went to lawlessness. Law enforcement should get a warrant to check his communications for the day or 2 preceding that day.


15 posted on 02/17/2012 10:31:52 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; ...
Ping...............

Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday

16 posted on 02/17/2012 10:56:25 AM PST by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

Read it. It’s a good one by Attorney Hatfield.


17 posted on 02/17/2012 11:01:33 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot (loss of constitutional rule of law)

Thanx for the pingie

18 posted on 02/17/2012 11:02:56 AM PST by GregNH (I will continue to do whatever it takes, my grandchildren are depending on me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

CORRECTION/RETRACTION:

I’m trying to find where I read about the CIA looking for Obama’s BC in Hawaii and so far I can’t find it. What I find is Vallely saying that ex-CIA people all agree that the long-form Obama has posted is a forgery and also Vallely saying that Obama’s birth certificate has never been found in Hawaii. (for instance, at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/311433/ ).

I must have accidentally convoluted those 2 statements to come up with Vallely saying that CIA agents actually looked for the document in Hawaii. But that’s not what was actually said, so I retract what I said. It was a mistake. My apologies.


19 posted on 02/17/2012 1:05:16 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

One question I like people to answer is:

Lets say Osama Bin Laden ( or just pick any madman sycopath ) had a child with an American women, the child was born in Florida ( or pick any US state ), making the child a US citizen by birth. Should this child one day be legally eligble to run for the Office of the President of the United States?

The answers people give are rather interesting.


20 posted on 02/17/2012 1:07:48 PM PST by Bud Krieger (Another President , another idiot......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bud Krieger

Why not? Why does having a man like Osama Bin Laden for a father automatically mean the kid won’t turn out to be a fine American? What about the mom - you seem to be discounting her role in raising the kid.

What’s wrong with judging each man or women individually solely on their character and actions? We don’t have to lay the sins of the parents on their children.

Leave it to the judgement of the American people.


21 posted on 02/17/2012 1:26:35 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Leave it to the judgement of the American people.


Excuse me? Didn’t the American people vote for “Hope and Change” in 2008? And don’t think it will be easy getting rid of the criminal-in-chief in Nov with all the voter fraud that’s set to take place.

Hugo Chavez would be so jealous...


22 posted on 02/17/2012 1:42:52 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Whose judgement do you suggest we leave it to?


23 posted on 02/17/2012 1:43:54 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

So it would be the “judgement” of the American people and not what is outlined in the US Constitution that should be the determining factor on whom is “eligble” to be President of the United States?

Is that the argument?


24 posted on 02/17/2012 1:50:23 PM PST by Bud Krieger (Another President , another idiot......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

placemark


25 posted on 02/17/2012 1:55:23 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bud Krieger

No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.

And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.


26 posted on 02/17/2012 1:56:37 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Whose judgement do you suggest we leave it to?


Certainly not yours...that’s why our founder’s established the country as a NATION OF LAWS, not men. If you don’t follow the U.S. Constitution then you are not following the law, despite the best intentions of those who pass judgement.


27 posted on 02/17/2012 2:06:23 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

So when the Supreme Court reaffirms Ankeny and WKA, are we still a nation of laws?

Question for you - I am trying to figure out who first advanced the two parents definition - was it Leo Defronio? I know his name is associated with the idea but was he the first?


28 posted on 02/17/2012 2:11:24 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.

And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.


Here’s 2 conservative organizations for you...

Van Irion / Liberty Legal Foundation

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/

Larry Klayman / Freedom Watch

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/cases

I guess Alan Keyes was not a major conservative politician...


29 posted on 02/17/2012 2:11:46 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

When did you join FR?


30 posted on 02/17/2012 2:14:44 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Ok - I was wrong about the legal groups.

Why do you think the big ones like the Federalist Society and the Landmark Legal Foundation are silent on the issue?

Keyes claimed there is “persuasive evidence” that Obama was born in Kenya in 1961. And no - I personally don't consider Keyes a major conservative politician. When was last relevant on the political scene - he has been silent for a long time.

31 posted on 02/17/2012 2:21:27 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

January 28th, 2012


32 posted on 02/17/2012 2:23:25 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

What about anchor babies?

I mean, if we are going to allow one US citizen parent = natural born then why stop there? Really. Let the people be the judge as you stated. Why not just say, born on US soil = natural born?

I know what you are saying about the SCOTUS, legal system, etc.. and yes, it seems they are on your side on this issue.

I am not saying I agree with it, and I believe they need to address this issue once and for all, but I concede your point.

Does inaction on behalf of these authorities make it law? Do you personally believe this issue needs to be resolved?


33 posted on 02/17/2012 2:24:00 PM PST by Bud Krieger (Another President , another idiot......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bud Krieger

Born on US soil = natural born is the present definition of natural born citizen. And when it comes Presidential eligibility I have no problem with it.

The anchor baby problem is a different issue because it is linked to illegal immigration. For that reason alone I would support a Constitutional amendment to prevent the children of people in the country illegally from becoming citizens. It would reduce illegal immigration and save us billions in tax dollars.


34 posted on 02/17/2012 2:30:01 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Yeah, gotta hate it when those folks who have been right every single time show up and harsh the mellow.

You mean like the when the authorities denied their rights and oppressed black people? Yeah, Democrats show up in the strangest places of authority sometimes.

Here on Free Republic too.

35 posted on 02/17/2012 2:34:34 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
In his very recent first post, he pretended to be a birther.

I am confused...

Did I miss something along the way - I was hoping and praying it was a done deal.

36 posted on 02/17/2012 2:36:34 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Alien Insurrection from planet fogbow!


37 posted on 02/17/2012 2:43:34 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Got tired of hanging out with like minds at fogbow?


38 posted on 02/17/2012 2:45:04 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Why not? Why does having a man like Osama Bin Laden for a father automatically mean the kid won’t turn out to be a fine American? What about the mom - you seem to be discounting her role in raising the kid.

The moms role? Drag him to Indonesia for several years, then park him at home with his Grandparents to raise him. (After they adopted him for obvious legal reasons.) Yeah, she did a bang up Job raising barry.

What’s wrong with judging each man or women individually solely on their character and actions? We don’t have to lay the sins of the parents on their children.

It is not about the sins of the parents, it is about compliance with what the law says. It says you have to be 35 years old. 34 won't do, despite the character and actions. it says you must have lived in this nation for 14 years. 13.5 is not enough, despite your character and actions. It also says you must be a "natural born citizen." Being born as both an English citizen and an American citizen at the same time is NOT a natural born citizen, and therefore you do not fit the explicit requirements of the law. No amount of Character or Actions will change the fact that someone doesn't fit the requirements.

Leave it to the judgement of the American people.

Yes, that worked out well this last time around.

It is my own personal opinion that anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat for President ought to be excluded from voting because they are either incurably insane, or irrationally stupid.

I would settle for non-government-paid taxpayers. That would take out a HUGE swath of their voters.

39 posted on 02/17/2012 2:45:30 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike


He also claimed...

I retired as a Commander.

then later followed up with...

Best time of my career being in charge of 1st Division.
40 posted on 02/17/2012 2:46:10 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The law of the land is that being born on US soil = NBC.

I know you disagree vehemently but WKA made it so and Ankeny confirmed it. And that is how it will play out through November.


41 posted on 02/17/2012 2:54:21 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

“No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.

And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.”

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, Haran1196!

Read the Minor decision and the case information. The SC did indeed define Natural Born Citizen. And if today’s court does not with to adhere to the precedent and the Constitution, we need a new Court.


42 posted on 02/17/2012 3:07:22 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Many “anchor babies” are completely legal. Like those to mothers here in the US on various types of visas.

But to get an answer to one of my questions, do you believe this issue needs to be visted by the SCOTUS to finally determine the criteria on what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen? Since it has never happened to date.

As of right now, there is not any written law difinitively describing what constitutes a NBC. I personally think it needs to be settled.


43 posted on 02/17/2012 3:09:48 PM PST by Bud Krieger (Another President , another idiot......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; All

WHO WILL ASK, AND WILL HE ANSWER?

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/16/top-12-for-2012-questions-for-barry-soetoro/

Election time is upon us once again. For clarity of the issues facing the candidates or challenging candidates to even appear on ballots for 2012, a simple engagement (preferably on camera) of inquiry provided in the list below should reveal the most pressing Constitutional issue facing America. For every candidate these types of questions have been routine and required to be sufficiently, accurately, and honestly confirmed to receive their Party nomination, that is, until the 2008 election, when none of the questions were answered and independently confirmed for Barack Hussein Obama.

Perhaps the 2012 election will be different. The more discerning voter has reasonable doubt that the last election was legitimate because of a questionably ineligible candidate on the ballot. This suspicion can be alleviated by obtaining the answers to twelve questions which Barry Soetero, aka Barack Obama, has never PERSONALLY answered.

Where and when did you formally (legally) change your name from Barry Soetero to Barack H. Obama?

What hospital in Hawaii will/can confirm your birth record?

With which student status (resident, foreign, etc.) did you apply for student loans at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard?
Have you ever traveled to Russia?

Having run as the most transparent candidate, why do you block all access to past records?

Since your release on April 27, 2011 of your Hawaii birth record, can we the American people see the microfiche of the original since you have nothing to hide?

How do you respond to the computer, Adobe®, and graphics experts who have declared your “long-form birth certificate” a forgery?

How did you secure a Connecticut Social Security number while living in Hawaii?

In transparency that you consistently affirm, would you commit to an independent DNA test confirming your claimed biological ancestry?

Can you explain the motivation for signing Executive Order #13489 sealing all records of your identity, passports, school attendance, college records, Selective Service registration, etc.?

How did Bill Ayers (he only lived in the neighborhood) have authorization to pick up your kids from school?

As a sponsor (with Hillary Clinton) of Senate Resolution 511 confirming McCain as eligible for the office of POTUS during the 2008 election, how do you qualify as Article II, Section 1 Constitutional “natural born Citizen” with a non-citizen father?

As a sponsor (with Hillary Clinton) of Senate Resolution 511 confirming McCain as eligible for the office of POTUS during the 2008 election, how do you qualify as Article II, Section 1 Constitutional “natural born Citizen” with a non-citizen father?

Those running and debating for President of the United States only need to ask Barry Soetero the above short list of pertinent questions to establish legitimate law-abiding grounds on which to proceed further into the campaign. Unless the above questions are accurately and provably dealt with, there is NO election by law. There was no legal election in 2008, since the issues are unresolved and continually pending within the corruption of Congress, Department of Justice, Homeland Security (think of it, a usurper has authority over these agencies), CIA, FBI, State Department, NSA, etc.

May integrity rule where it has declined. May the new candidates be filled with humble boldness to ask penetrating, truth-seeking, and law-abiding questions, and in so doing, secure a leadership that is from the people, for the people and by the people.


44 posted on 02/17/2012 3:16:54 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
The law of the land is that being born on US soil = NBC.

"Natural born citizen" is a condition, not a title. The law cannot make you one thing or the other. Just as being born in a stable will not make you a donkey, being born somewhere will not make you a "natural citizen." If it did, slaves and Indians would have been citizens. Being born as a "natural citizen" is a condition, such as having brown hair. You either have it, or you do not have it.

What YOU refer to is a misunderstanding of the law. Yes, in most people's common misunderstanding (to include most lawyers who were wrongly taught) being born here makes you a citizen, (because of the 14th amendment) but that is not the same thing as being born a "natural citizen."

I know you disagree vehemently but WKA made it so and Ankeny confirmed it. And that is how it will play out through November.

Ankeny is utter crap. I won't even debate Ankeny because it is so ignorantly stupid it doesn't even warrant notice. Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, did not assert that being born here makes you a "natural born citizen", it explicitly stated that being born here (by virtue of the 14th amendment) makes you a "citizen."

Since the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" was well known to the Gray Supreme court, their decision to omit the words "natural born" was intentional, not a mistake. As a result, their ruling had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility requirements.

"Natural born citizen" is a condition, not a title. It cannot be bestowed on anyone for whom it is not already true. A "natural citizen" is one upon whom only ONE NATION can claim their loyalty.

If you have a claim on your loyalty from more than one nation, you are not a "natural" citizen.

45 posted on 02/17/2012 3:19:33 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

46 posted on 02/17/2012 3:20:33 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Whose judgement do you suggest we leave it to?

American Taxpayers who do not work for the Government. (Mostly Non-Democrats.)

47 posted on 02/17/2012 3:21:06 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.

And what reason do you have not to believe it?

And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.

That is irrelevant as to whether or not it is true. Do not base your understanding of the truth on what the crowd says. That is a fallacy called "Argumentum ad Populum." (Argument that the crowd agrees with you.)

To know what is the truth regarding the original and correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen" you have to do research as to where the term originated and what was it's intended purpose.

I have pointed out to people many times, if your interpretation of the term does not prevent foreign influence, how can it be correct if it doesn't accomplish what the founders intended?

A Definition that does not accomplish the task intended for the term, is an incorrect definition.

48 posted on 02/17/2012 3:31:19 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

49 posted on 02/17/2012 3:32:35 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
"Why not? Why does having a man like Osama Bin Laden for a father automatically mean the kid won’t turn out to be a fine American?"

"What’s wrong with judging each man or women individually solely on their character and actions? We don’t have to lay the sins of the parents on their children. Leave it to the judgement of the American people."

The media never presented the case to the American People. I don't think I ever heard the term natural born Citizen uttered by any of the major networks even once.

Present the case to the American People and Obama will have no choice but to resign.

50 posted on 02/17/2012 3:33:07 PM PST by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-317 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson